Is torture ever justified?
Your child has been taken, how far would you go?
What is torture? Is it a binary thing — someone is being tortured or they aren’t? When, if ever, is it acceptable?? What Ethical system are you using to get to your position (not just your opinion but how/why you believe what you do).
In a previous post we talked about negative media messaging and how a complex topic is distilled into a sound bite, thus eliminating the nuance that contains the truly hard parts that need to be grappled with. The same is happening with torture so we need to unpack it.
I asked a almost 18yo kid if torture is acceptable — “no” came the quick reply. “What if a sick child was abducted, their captor was found by the police but they refused to say where the child was being hidden. Can the police make them talk?” “Yes…no…well, I don’t know” came the response. In its simplest form, we are dealing with the ticking time bomb scenario.
Are there justifiable circumstances where torture is acceptable?
Asking if torture is ethical makes the assumption that there is an ethical code from which a comparison will take place. Nietzsche believes that ethics (morality) “is the means of ensuring the duration of something beyond individuals, or rather through the enslavement of the individual” (Walter Kaufmann). In effect, society is defining what is acceptable and not. However, Socrates believes that man should not follow the opinion of the many (if he knows they are wrong; he believe the opinion of the man who understands. (Plato) Both philosophers make the point that man does not have the right to punish. But these views were from over a century ago, surely the complexities of modern society make the issue cloudy? Not according to the Geneva Convention — it bans any mistreatment of prisoners (Mark Bowden, 2003).
Bruce Hoffman is well regarded in the security field and he believes the ends justifies the means. In the case of 9/11 — the US was attacked and we needed to take the steps necessary to ensure this didn’t happen again. Ultimately he says that what we have here is good people (the interrogators) faced with bad circumstances (the requirement to get critical information).
If we are to believe Hans Morgenthau, life is governed by objective laws rooted in human nature; coupled with Socrates and Nietzsche, human nature is then to do no harm. But the social construct of society, and the identity it creates, then becomes the catalyst for making torture acceptable. So we convince ourselves that it isn’t ethical but we may need to do it to protect ourselves. So how far do we go?
So let’s talk the present day. In February there was a piece on NPR about the death penalty; in Boston Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is going through sentencing and the federal prosecutor is seeking the death penalty however, during jury selection he couldn’t choose someone who is definitely for or absolutely against death. The reporter was listening to comments from potential jurors about their feelings and their ability to sentencing the accused to death. Many of these individuals, when asked if they supported the death penalty said yes; however, when it came time to put someone to death, they were reluctant to do so. Is death the ultimate torture for a terrorist? The government thinks so because when a prisoner is executed, the medical examiner is required to record the cause of death as murder.
To be clear, this post isn’t intended to debate if torture is or isn’t justified. It’s intended for you to evaluate what you believe, why you believe that and if there are situations where the answer isn’t black and white. Ask yourself:
- What Ethical system do you use?
- Is the ethical system we use for ourselves different when it comes to national actions?
- How can the US call itself moral if we do find discrepancies between how we do business as a nation and how you want your children to look at your personal ethic?
